Number Understand changes in relation to PBS and temporary cap? Impact on organisation?
Anything that needs to
change in relation to the PBS / cap?
Impact of further
restrictions (permanent cap)?
Pilot N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A.
1 Yes, broadly. Number of medical vacancies struggling to recruit to.
Need exemptions where cannot fill from indigenous workforce, especially in more remote areas of the UK.
N/A.
2 Yes. Some information appears to be conflicting. Interpretations of the guidance can vary widely too.
Minimal to date but will have a big impact going forward especially as will then be more dependent on agency locums and costs would be prohibitive in current economic climate.
Need more flexibility to run services and appoint necessary staff.
More strategic long term planning required to develop indigenous skilled workers to fill vacancies.
Need more scenario planning in the mid-long term to ensure suitably trained indigenous workforce.
Would not be able to run certain services.
3 General understanding. It is about breaking the link between migration and settlement and filling vacancies with indigenous workers wherever possible.
Little short term impact as already appointed a number of non-EU workers. But possible problems of retaining and replacing such workers in the future.
N/A More emphasis on retaining
indigenous staff and up- skilling.
4 Yes – will have to apply for certificates etc. Allocations may be based on whether the organisation is a new or existing sponsor; whether the organisation is defined as a ‘Band A’ rated sponsor (no
Risk of losing existing staff and appointing new non-EU staff. Delays in decision making by Home Office will not be helpful in supporting such individuals.
Look at specialities and where shortages exist. Shortage Occupation List needs looking at. – A lot of training grade doctors appear to not be on the Shortage List.
More advertising campaigns would be required. Restrictions on Junior Doctors in Tier 2 will hit hard. Skills and
experience will suffer, as well as patient care. 49
evidence of abuse/correct systems in place) and the particular shortages that exist. But delays between making applications for ‘exceptional circumstances’ and allocation of certificates may make a difficult situation worse.
Home Office will look at things on a Trust by Trust
basis…individuals may move to another country or decide to get a job in their own country as Doctors don’t normally apply just for one job. Staff may be lost to other Trusts in the UK – competition within the UK?
Communication between the Home Office and NHS Trusts needs to be better.
5 Yes. No immediate impact. But
problems emerged initially with the tier system brought in during 2007/08.
If existing sponsorship certificates are not used then they may be taken away. Problems of geographical isolation so tend to have many vacancies.
Also, doctors may be deterred from applying if they are not sure that they can obtain a certificate.
Shortage Occupation List needs to be looked at again. It isn’t looked at in respect of sector or geographical area. Some areas have constant recruitment problems due to their
geographical isolation – need more flexibility in appointing non-EU staff into such positions.
Problems of obtaining certificates and filling vacant posts.
6 Yes. Sponsorship Certificates have
been reduced from 12 to 5.
Clarity in terms of how it operates as it is too
Need to have more flexibility to appoint 50
Now any new appointments over this level will need to be defined as an “exceptional application”. This will slow the whole appointment process down.
complicated. It is hard to
understand and follow – both for employees and employers alike. Also needs to be more flexibility on “hard to fill” jobs.
individuals into posts which are “hard to fill”. Otherwise it may not be able to provide a good service in many areas.
7 Yes. But everyone may have been placed in the same boat.
Yes – making it more difficult to apply to sponsor such individuals and to secure certificates. Potential appointees are looking
elsewhere because it is taking so long to secure
Sponsorship Certificates and to make an offer of
employment.
There is a need to look at the NHS in its own right and not make each individual hospital compete with each other. Transfers between hospitals in the UK need to be more straightforward rather than having to apply for another sponsorship certificate if somebody wants to move to fill a vacancy in a similar post somewhere else in the UK.
NHS needs more flexibility to fill vacancies with non- EU workers quickly.
8 Yes. Not had an impact at the
moment. Not had to use certificates of sponsorship in the last 12 months.
Problem is that allocations have - now have to apply under ‘exceptional
circumstances’ or else cannot recruit non-UK nationals to fill posts.
So mid-longer term it may have more of an impact. But also depends on how the workforce is managed in the future.
Needs to be slightly more realistic – there will always be speciality areas that cannot be filled through use of UK labour. If certain wards and medical areas wish to continue to
operate then the cap will need to be lifted.
Going back to the old permit system and where each case was reviewed on its own merits would be better.
More reliance on indigenous workforce.
9 Yes. Not had an impact at the N/A. N/A.
moment. Not had to use certificates of sponsorship in the last 12 months.
10 Yes. Basically looked at how many
permits allocated last year and took one off! But year before that there were 15 extra workers on permits. So decision-making appears to be very haphazard.
Need to be realistic in reassessing the Shortage Occupation List and coming up with a new list.
Greater reliance on agency locums and significant increase in costs to NHS Trusts.
11 Yes. Impact quite significant –
advised could have 4 non-EU workers between August 2010 and April 2011. But lower numbers from this point expected.
4 Permits against 14 vacancies in A&E – spent time recruiting overseas but cannot now appoint. Lots of trusts appear to be in the same position.
Vacancies within NHS Trusts do not appear to ‘marry up’ with those on the Shortage Occupation List.
Need to be realistic in reassessing the Shortage Occupation List and coming up with a new list.
Existing Shortage Occupation List appears to have been cut over the last two years. There is no point in restricting work permits for speciality areas with current shortages in staff.
Greater reliance on agency locums and significant increase in costs to NHS Trusts.
12 Yes. Cap is going to prevent skilled
non-EU workers being appointed to fill vacancies – could impact on quality of patient care.
Need to relax rules in whatever way is possible.
Impact detrimentally on medical recruitment and possibly non-medical as well.
Ultimately it could impact on the quality of staff
employed.
13 Yes. Problems due to being
allowed only one application to bring in non-EU workers.
Should be more exemptions where impossible to recruit into shortage areas from within UK/ EU.
There should be a system of review for one-off situations.
Significant vacancies that would impact on standards of care.
14 Not wholly conversant. Catastrophic effect if not allowed to employ any migrant workers at all – more reliant on EU workers?
Non-EU migrants have to earn a lot more to be a senior carer - which is on the Shortage Occupation List. Difficult for many employers to pay such wages thus problems of retaining such labour.
Struggle to recruit staff and fill vacancies impacting on the productivity of the business.
15 Don’t know. Will impact on filling vacancies – indigenous population will not be a substitute.
Don’t know. Yes – makes it even more difficult to recruit non-EU workers to fill vacancies.